Posts: 3 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Wed 17 Jun, 2020 10:07 pm
Hello guys!
Before I get hung, drawn, and quartered by one of the weapons from this site for reviving this thread on my first post, I wanna say why. While researching this topic that caught my attention a little on the side, I decided to try and figure out Goliath's height based on the details given in the Bible (1 Samuel 17:4-7). This forum had 10 times more information than every other place: book or internet put together, so I can see people here are not only polite but professionals at their weaponry!
Special shoutout to Henrik for his
replica: bro it is amazing!
And props to Sheldon for putting in this effort! Like Sheldon, I'm a biblical literalist: talking donkeys included (if they can have an app that translates your dog's barks, why not). I subscribe to a more naturalistic approach, where God orchestrates most events in a sort of semi-Deism fashion: they have direct impact, but they're not usually directly. For example the parting of the Red Sea was because of a very strong east wind (Exodus 14:21). Exceptions would be various prophets (Moses' healing with the wood, Elijah, Jesus).
First let me give my (unsolicited) opinion on some of the ideas I read here. I did read the entire topic, every reply, and I did research too:
-The Septuagint (LXX) does give Goliath a shorter height than the 9'9". But they were frequently correcting what they thought were problems like exactly the kind we're wondering here: how could Goliath be that tall. They do this often (e.g. Exodus 12:40). And the Dead Sea Scrolls may be the oldest
copies we've found, but the Alexandrian manuscript tradition that has the 9'9" height is considered more original. Be that as it may, it's not like someone couldn't have used an expression. When someone says, "dude, this weighs a ton," I won't consider it to be a technical, literal statement! "six cubits and a span" could've been an expression of the time, the way the British expression, "left him a shilling" means someone was disinherited. "raining cats and dogs", or Hellen of Troy having a face that "launched ten thousand ships".
-Goliath would've been coming out of the Philistine ranks on his own initiative to taunt the Israelites; maybe he was a commander to give the promise of slavery if he was defeated (nobody went for that anyway). He's noted as a warrior by Saul (the Israelite king) from his youth, but Saul could be just guessing.
-Also I do believe, like Erik, that Goliath maybe held his spear like the Assegai shorter iklwa, but Henrik's reconstruction doesn't seem to necessitate that.
So here's my idea. I decided to try and compare known armor size and weight for the average human, and see what estimate can be made about Goliath's height from that, given the biblical weight. Here's the relevant text:
Quote: |
1 Samuel 17:4-7
4Then a champion named Goliath, from Gath, came out from the Philistine camp. He was six cubits and a span.
5 and wore a bronze helmet and bronze scale armor that weighed 125 pounds.[5000 shekels]
6 There was bronze armor on his shins, and a bronze sword was slung between his shoulders.
7 His spear shaft was like a weaver’s beam, and the iron point of his spear weighed 15 pounds.[600 shekels] In addition, a shield-bearer was walking in front of him.
|
GIVENS
-Goliath's armor is 125 lbs = c.57 kg. This is either his helmet and cuirass, or possibly the entire panoply (shin guards mentioned in verse 6, for example, could've been sidenotes to additional armor for the weight in verse 5) and maybe weapons too. I'll explore both options
CONSTANTS
-Density of bronze/brass: 8.73g/cm3. Brass has identical properties to it in this regard [Gabriel and Metz, From Sumer to Rome (1991), p.xx]
-Ancient bronze cuirass weight was between 5kg, 1mm thick - 10kg, 2mm thick. [Aldrete et al. Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor (2013), p.147] with at least one example from Plutarch (2nd century writer) of a 13-18kg cuirass. [p.146]
-The total panoply was 20-25kg [Aldrete et al. ibid., p.147]
-The helmet was about 1/3 the weight of the cuirass [Aldrete et al. ibid., p.147]
ASSUMPTIONS/APPROXIMATIONS
-My main estimate is how I measure the dimensions of the cuirass (the more likely scale armor would be similar I suppose). I imagine cutting it at the side from the bottom to the armpit and stretching it out so I can get a rectangular plate (see attachment below). I calculated on my own body and the distance from below the navel to the top of the sternum was approximately half my waist. So I give the length (2X) as twice the width (X) for convenience. It's irrelevant that there are big holes in it because I base my starting point on the 10kg actual measured ancient cuirass by Aldrete, and any increases would be of similar, but bigger objects.
-The ancient height being ~170cm (5'7"). I didn't bother finding a source for this because I remember reading some history book in high school saying the Romans were 5'6" and then I saw someone on the internet giving 167-172, so I felt it was more or less accurate.
MATH
For those of you that don't like math, I'm sorry. It seemed much simpler the first time I tried the calculations than when I "simplified" them here. The issue is to convert weight (in grams!) into volume (cm3) and then relate that to proportionate height. So we have:
length (2x) times width (x) times thickness (T: 1mm-2mm= 0.1-0.2: this can be adjusted, some armors could have been thicker), which equals the weight W (e.g. 10kg=10,000) divided by the density (8.73): T2x^2=W/8.73
Let's get a proportion of the armor waist-to-height ratio. I plug in 10000 for W and 0.2 for T:
0.4x^2=10,000/8.73; x=c.53.5cm for a 170cm tall guy. Remember x is half the waist, so (irrelevant, but fewer decimals), 53.5/170 becomes 107/340. The actual waist is 107 and height is 170, but that's not a discrepancy because our starting point is finding the "half-waist" to height ratio so we don't waste time multiplying around.
We need another formula here that we can now get: the relationship between height "H" and "X" (half-waist). We just established that the half-waist to height ratio is 107/340. so:
2X/H = 107/170
[minor side note: I know this gives a waist to height ratio of 0.64, which means these guys were obese, but as you all know the cuirass is not the stomach: it has to come down and be a little looser, like how they measure your clothes. Many of the soldiers fought into their 60's: Caesar's veterans were already old by the time he fought Pompey, which made them slower (and lazier), and maybe fatter. Veterans from Alexander served well into their 60's in the subsequent Diadachoi civil wars. Roman soldiers were old as well, into their 60's (Tiberius Abdel Ben Pantera and his comrade tombstones). Goliath I guess could've been no older than his 30's/40's, but again, the waist-height ratio shouldn't be a problem, because I based it from the 10kg cuirass and 170cm height ancient constants]
We need to find X: X=(107H)/340
So our formulas:
Weight (W) + Thickness (T) to Height (H): T2x^2=W/8.73
Half-waist (X) to Height (H): X=(107H)/340
SCENARIO 1: Helmet and Armor only = 57kg (125lbs)
-Earlier we noted that the helmet was around 1/3 the weight of the cuirass. This would make it 1/4 of the whole if both are weighed. This would make the cuirass 3/4 of the 57kg = approximately 42kg. The biblical author probably rounded (5000 shekels), so let's say Goliath's cuirass in this case is 40kg, or 40,000g.
T2x^2=40,000/8.73
Solving for X:
x=sqrt( 20000/8.73T )
We know the formula for X to Height H:
107H/340 = sqrt( 20,000/8.73T)
H=152.1/sqrt(T)
We now have a formula for Goliath's height given a 40kg (90lb) cuirass. Plugging in various thicknesses (I start from 2mm, because 1mm makes him 15 feet 9 inches tall! (480 cm)):
-2mm (T=0.2), Height=340cm (11'2")
-2.5mm (T=0.25), H=304cm (10 feet)
-3mm (T=0.3), H=278cm (9'1")
-3.5mm (T=0.35), H=257cm (8'5")
-4mm (T=0.4), H=227cm (7'5")
I'm no expert, but the last one would be my only bet. Could he have had 4mm armor? Ancient precedents? Feasibility (making as well as wearing in battle)?
SCENARIO 2: All armor is 57kg (125lbs)
Now let's say that his WHOLE armor weighed 57kg. In that case, compared with the 20-25kg estimate given by Aldrete above, his cuirass would be maybe about twice the high (10kg) normal range, or 20kg (20,000 grams). The new formula for the height H would be:
T2x^2=20,000/8.73
x=sqrt( 10,000/8.73T ) = 100/sqrt(8.73T)
H=107.5/sqrt(T)
So plugging in from 1mm-4mm armor thickness:
1mm (T=0.1), H=340cm (11'2")
1.5mm (T=0.15), H=278cm (9'1")
2mm (T=0.2), H=240cm (7'11")
2.25mm (T=0.225), H=227cm (7'5")
2.5mm (T=0.25), H=215cm (7'1")
2.75mm (T=0.275), H=205cm (6'9")
3mm (T=0.3), H=196cm (6'5")
As we can see, starting from around 2mm cuirass thickness, Aldrete's upper bound (but notes thicker armor could've been made, pp.146-7), we get realistic sizes. My bet is something around 2.25-2.5mm, or something like 220cm / 7'3" tall, because they'd want him to have thicker armor for such a giant cuirass.
Goliath was probably part of the "Sea Peoples" who caused the bronze age collapse around 1200 BC in the Ancient Near East. This actual episode takes place in the late 11th century BC. David began his reign at 30, c.1012 BC, and he would've been around 15-20 in this episode, putting this scene around 1025 BC. Goliath's name is Greek (Colliades), so his height is not impossible (also his children are called giants - 2 Samuel 21:15-22).
For someone who was 5'6", a 7 foot man would indeed be described as a giant. Marbot, an officer under Napoleon refers to the "giant Russians" in his battles with them. Calls a 6 foot hussar a "giant" as well. David based his confidence on the fact that he trained with the sling against lions and bears who stole his lambs (1 Samuel 17:34-37).
It wouldn't have been the first or last time the bravery and preparation of a smaller opponent defeated a larger colossus (Battle of Tegyra, Leuctra; Alexander the Great; Battle of Okehazama).
Attachment: 7.05 KB